Stop the Press! Tesla announces REAL HP numbers for P85D and P90L

[darthy001]

Who accused anyone of ever claiming or even suggesting, that Tesla should have done this?????

If that wasnt the implied point, then back to Andys question: whats the point of discussing pure fictional statements not remotely relevant to the thread?

His queen-reference is just as interesting as these "what ifs"...

 

[P85DEE]

If that wasnt the implied point,

No attempt was made to "imply it"..

If you inferred it, well then I won't be held responsible for that.

Then back to Andys question: whats the point of discussing pure fictional statements not remotely relevant to the thread?

His queen-reference is just as interesting as these "what ifs"...

Is it a criminal offense, or some violation of established protocol in here to wonder "what it"???

If so, well then please enlighten me.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I see it differently because of a variety of reasons. One of them is that the entire premise of one of the arguments I've been hearing on this and other threads is "no, you're confusing vehicle horsepower with motor horsepower" and now you're saying "well you can use the terms interchangeably". Cognitive dissonance is the most charitable way I can try to understand such thinking.

The distinction was clearly made where it matters: when ordering the vehicle, on the vehicle specs on the website, and in the user manual. Tesla was very careful about that.

However, ultimately, if motor horsepower is a valid rating system, I don't think saying the "motor" part is necessary in all instances, esp. in spoken conversation. This is especially true when Tesla only advertised one number (691hp), so there was no confusion over which they were referring to (now that they do have a second number, there is room for confusion).

I'll give a recent example: The 3.0L V6 in the 2003-2006 Camry was rated at 210 hp under SAE J1349 net power. It was re-rated 190hp (10% difference) in 2005 under SAE J2723 certified power. I don't find it unacceptable if the Toyota CEO just said 210hp or 190hp without referencing the rating system.

 

[darthy001]

Is it a criminal offense, or some violation of established protocol in here to wonder "what it"???

If so, well then please enlighten me.

Of course not, but once again: whats the point? It adds absolutely nothing to the discussion other than derailing it with even more endless babble.

 

[P85DEE]

Of course not, but once again: whats the point? It adds absolutely nothing to the discussion other than derailing it with even more endless babble.

The entire "horsepower" discussion has arguably been "off the rails" for a long time now.

One more musing or question along the lines of "what if", is not going to push it any further over the edge than it has already traveled.

BTW, your buddy's remark back at post #494 was completely uncalled for. Yet I don't see you admonishing him about "derailing" the discussion with such a remark.

 

[Sad]

I hope that you realize that motor hp *is* torque for the tesla drivetrains. Take motor hp, multiply by 5,252 and divide by the rpm for the motor hp rating,

Out of curiosity, what would that RPM be? Anyway, you're implying that motor hp could be used as a proxy for torque. Let's assume that's true. Tesla already communicates the max torque, so what's the added value of that motor hp number? None (apart for maybe expected increased power when a 125kWh battery comes out and is available for swap). One can (roughly) predict the acceleration properties of a Tesla with 3 numbers: max torque, max system power (at the wheels or at the crankshaft) and weight. One could also replace the max torque by the speed at which max power starts to be available (which was provided before indirectly via the max power RPM range). So Tesla, until a few days ago, omitted one crucial number, which made it impossible to predict highway passing power. And instead displayed a useless number that could easily be confused (as it was by 99% of auto journalists and the public) with that crucial number.

 

[darthy001]

The distinction was clearly made where it matters: when ordering the vehicle, on the vehicle specs on the website, and in the user manual.

This is factually incorrect in regards to owners manual. This info was added to my owners manual well _after_ deliveries had started. My owners manual from when I ordered the car has no reference to motor power or ECE R85 whatsoever. And you have been informed of this before as well on several occasions.

So please stop spreading this misinformation.

 

[rns-e]

As far as you suggestion that Tesla presented what it did because it conspired to mislead go, I do not buy it, not for a second. This is not a remotely reasonable conclusion.

Why do you think Tesla used the 691 hp then? It can not be to tell that the car accelerates like a 691 hp ICE, since that is the story told by the 0-60 mph time and torque. The 691 hp tells the customer that it will be able to pull away at higher speed - which these motors actually are capable of. I totally agree with you on this and that is why the battery limit is so an important number, as this tells the customer that it will not be able to use all this power at higher speed.

 

[Canuck]

The issue is surely not trivially simple. The representation was not fraudulent.

As was mentioned more than one time, the fact that the car produces 691 motor hp without considering the limitation of the battery is responsible for the acceleration metrics that Tesla *advertised* (as opposed to the acceleration metrics that some people inferred). You are seemingly refusing to give any consideration to the fact that if P85D would have been supplied with motors that have motor horsepower merely matching the total system output horsepower of 463, it would have slower 0 to 60 acceleration and would've took longer to go 1/4 mile than 85D or P85

The fact that P85D has motor horsepower rating of 691 is responsible for such a car having roughly 50% higher torque than that of a car with similar motors, but having combined rating of 463 motor horsepower (just matching the rated battery output). This is exactly (higher output drive units - with the combined rating of 691 motor hp vs. hypothetical 463 motor hp) what the unhappy owners paid for, and exactly what they got.


The P85D with 691 motor hp and 463 hp battery output beats Audi RS7, BMW M6, MB CLS63 0 to 60mph, 0 to 100mph, and 1/4 mile. The P85D with 463 motor hp and 463 hp battery output would not.


Repeat after me: torque is **proportional** to hp for the similarly designed electric drive units (same motor speed at rated motor hp and similar motor controller). This torque produces acceleration that was advertised and is differentiating P85D from the lower variants of Tesla - 85D and P85. I understand frustration of people who incorrectly inferred P85D performance at higher speeds, but Tesla certainly did not advertised nor promoted the car based on these performance metrics.

So it is relatively (not trivially) simple, but majority of people beating themselves into a pulp of righteous indignation over this are just not understanding this, with a minority who do understand, pretending that this simple truth does not exist because it does not fit their accusatory narrative.

Great post. This the inherent problem in comparing ICE hp with EV hp. There are trade-offs that must be considered. Having said that, I still think Tesla owed a duty to explain it better. Perhaps not a legal duty but certainly a moral and ethical one.

 

[brianman]

The distinction was clearly made where it matters: when ordering the vehicle, on the vehicle specs on the website, and in the user manual. Tesla was very careful about that.

However, ultimately, if motor horsepower is a valid rating system, I don't think saying the "motor" part is necessary in all instances, esp. in spoken conversation. This is especially true when Tesla only advertised one number (691hp), so there was no confusion over which they were referring to (now that they do have a second number, there is room for confusion).

I'll give a recent example: The 3.0L V6 in the 2003-2006 Camry was rated at 210 hp under SAE J1349 net power. It was re-rated 190hp (10% difference) in 2005 under SAE J2723 certified power. I don't find it unacceptable if the Toyota CEO just said 210hp or 190hp without referencing the rating system.

In essence I think you're saying:
1. In "published electronic form by the company" the phrase "motor horsepower" is "completely different" (nod to "Fresh off the Boat") from "horsepower" and "everyone should know that."
2. In "verbal interviews with the company CEO" and "reviews and discussions in automotive outlets" (television, magazines, newspapers, blogs, etc.), the phrase "horsepower" can be used as an "everybody knows" shorthand for "motor horsepower."

If that's really what you're saying, then I think you've jumped the shark. I'm trying to understand your perspective here, but I simply can't.

 

[stopcrazypp]

This is factually incorrect in regards to owners manual. This info was added to my owners manual well _after_ deliveries had started. My owners manual from when I ordered the car has no reference to motor power or ECE R85 whatsoever. And you have been informed of this before as well on several occasions.

So please stop spreading this misinformation.

The user manual had always referred to the power of the motors, not a combined number (even though the ECE R85 reference was added later). I can dig up the screenshot of the older version, but I believe it was pretty clear it was talking about individual motors.

 

[Andyw2100]

My point is had the car been built with motors with 463 horsepower motor power, that it would perform nowhere near what it does now.

Again though, what's your point???

As Darthy correctly pointed out in my absence, my point was that it sounded like you were bringing up a hypothetical situation that had little (or nothing) to do with what we were discussing, in an attempt to denigrate those of us who did not correctly interpret Tesla's initial "motor power" terminology.

If that was not your intent, then I apologize.

 

[lolachampcar]

Stepping way back from hp, torque and the like, do you gals/guys think someone who owed a P+ then sold it to get a P85D has any right to be disappointed that it is just about the same as the previous P+ from 60 mph onwards? Do you think a reasonable person would expect more when Elon says the P85D has 50% more XYZ (performance related value)?

Kudos to the multi-dimensional shouting match comment. That was great.

 

[P85DEE]

As Darthy correctly pointed out in my absence, my point was that it sounded like you were bringing up a hypothetical situation that had little (or nothing) to do with what we were discussing, in an attempt to denigrate those of us who did not correctly interpret Tesla's initial "motor power" terminology.

If that was not your intent, then I apologize.

I can assure you, that this what you describe in bold above, was most certainly NOT my intent.

 

[Andyw2100]

I can assure you, that this what you describe in bold above, was most certainly NOT my intent.

In that case I again apologize.

- - - Updated - - -

Stepping way back from hp, torque and the like, do you gals/guys think someone who owed a P+ then sold it to get a P85D has any right to be disappointed that it is just about the same as the previous P+ from 60 mph onwards? Do you think a reasonable person would expect more when Elon says the P85D has 50% more XYZ (performance related value)?

And just to add some detail to lola's post, the exact quote from Musk that lola is referring to took place at the D announcement, where Musk stated that the P85D would have "about half again as much power."

Start at 4:15 for the quote:

 

[P85DEE]

In that case I again apologize.

Because the internet, advantages that it has, does not afford us the luxury of being able to see facial expressions, hear voice inflections, or convey other body language, it is entirely possible for just about anyone, to misinterpret an innocent comment as being a facetious comment.

The interpretation of internet comments, has never been an exact science.

In light of this truism, you are no more guilty than would be anyone else. Any other human being.

As such, while your apology is appreciated, in reality, no apology is necessary.

You're just as human as anyone else in here.

 

[ERP]

I have wondered, since the latest leg of this discussion started, just how this car would perform if it had "463 motor power"

Go drive your P85D and you'll know, because that is what it has.

 

[stopcrazypp]

In essence I think you're saying:
1. In "published electronic form by the company" the phrase "motor horsepower" is "completely different" (nod to "Fresh off the Boat") from "horsepower" and "everyone should know that."
2. In "verbal interviews with the company CEO" and "reviews and discussions in automotive outlets" (television, magazines, newspapers, blogs, etc.), the phrase "horsepower" can be used as an "everybody knows" shorthand for "motor horsepower."

If that's really what you're saying, then I think you've jumped the shark. I'm trying to understand your perspective here, but I simply can't.

Nope, you still don't really get my point. "horsepower" is not being used as "shorthand" for "motor horsepower". Let me put it another way:

"horsepower" or "hp" is simply a unit (as is kW). It makes absolutely no reference to how that number was arrived at.

"motor power" is a rating system, just like SAE J1995 gross power, SAE J1349 net power, SAE J2723 certified power, DIN, JIS, ECE R24, ECE R85, etc. This tells you how the number was arrived at.

While a spec sheet or manual may be expected to specify the rating system used (although many automakers don't even do that in their spec sheets), it is not necessary in all advertising and spoken interviews.

I'm not sure how people expect power to be tested, but it is all done with a motor or engine put on a test bench and with various accessories attached to it depending on the standard (if at all). They do not run a magical power probe on the output shaft of a car. Ultimately the engine or motor is still the primary test subject and depending on how the standard is specified, the numbers can vary drastically.

 

[P85DEE]

Go drive your P85D and you'll know, because that is what it has.

The first post of the thread includes a screen shot which indicates that my P85D has 463 "battery limited maximum motor shaft power".

And above that, I see 503 "motor power" in the front, and 259 "motor power" in the rear.

Is it correct to assume that these are both accurate?

 

[Hookmaker]

Excuse me gentlemen, but I am convinced this discussion is spiraling into one long BS story with no end result or real purpose. I and a few handfull's of people have spent a relentles amount of hours to open a dialogue with Tesla motors over the P85D and it's missing specs, so far to a dead end.

Countless threads offer a variety of interesting information but here are a few palpable facts to the point of the matter that simply can not be disputed:

- At D day and for a couple of months following it, Tesla motors promoted, marketed and sold the new model P85D with 700 HP (Europe) and out of this world specs comparable to and if not surpassing the McLaren F1. Until recently Tesla sales persons even kept selling these cars in shops by orally promoting still 700 HP's, and the McLaren blog statement is also very much alive on Teslas homepage

- The P85D has sold numerous, boosting both sales and revenue, since 1) many new customers were drawn to these extraordinary specs as were 2) many current owners that scrambled to release themselves of their other model S's to get the VERY much better one.

Furthermore, I AM ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED of a third fact: that the work done by a couple of handfull's of customers trying to shout Tesla Motors to attention has resulted in a TOTAL revamp of the marketing specifications for the model P85D.
This was our first and primary goal. AND we succeeded. AND This will lead me to predict that future customers will think twice before purchasing the P85D/P90D and DL over 85/90D going forward. Good, because they should!

Here in Scandinavia (both Denmark and Norway where the kettle now is almost at the boiling point) consumers are heavily protected, and I am also absolutely convinced, that should it ever come to that, any judge would simply pic the two simple numbers presented by Tesla then and now, subtract them from each other and slam down the hammer on the resulting difference. Case closed. Simple as that. It is not about standards, norms, roll out, bizarre calculations with watts and ohms, it's about how you market you product to a consumer that under no circumstances MUST know better.